READ the FINE PRINT

[negc]

Whoever writes the contract has the upper hand. It's just the way of the world!

Actually, I believe that if you check with a good lawyer you will find that exactly the opposite is true, especially if the other party had no input as to the language.

[TEXASMUNK]

If these occurances happen while on the ship, it is a foregin flagged vessel, thus negating US law

[whogo]

Article 16. If they take your photo, they can use it for any promotional purpose such as marketing - and they owe you nothing for the use of the photo or your likeness.

 

This is the one that bothers me. I assume they hire models for the glossy brochures and do not want normal cruisers. However, we can end up in the cruise video, and possibly held up to ridicule. Have you seen the clever speeded up shots where cruisers seem to be stuffing themselves? Each shot shows wider and wider passengers? Maybe it's funnier after a few drinks.

 

I avoid all photographers.

[FitzLA]

I have never read it. Never really cared. And now that I have read it, nothing suprises me, and I still don't care.

[CarpeCerevisi]

Not that I was really worried about it, but in regards to Article 3, this is from the U.S. Coast Guard web site -

 

Today, nearly all the ocean cruise lines employ passenger ships registered under flags of various foreign countries. (Note: The law requires that cruise-ship advertising in the U.S. disclose the country of registry.) Each ship is subject to the vessel inspection laws of the country in which it is registered. However, as a condition of permitting the vessels to take on passengers at U.S. ports, the U.S. Coast Guard requires the ships to meet the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (referred to as SOLAS.) SOLAS and other international regulations also require compliance with stringent regulations regarding structural fire protection, firefighting and lifesaving equipment, watercraft integrity and stability, vessel control, navigation safety, crewing and crew competency, safety management and environmental protection.

 

Most (if not all) countries cruise ships are registered in are signatories to SOLAS.

[CroozeAddict]

That's enough to knock your excitment level down a notch or two.:cool:

[Stallion]

although it is a contract of adhesion, there are very few cases that have not enforced the contractual provisions of these Cruise Contracts. I've specifically read almost every case in which RCCL, Carnival or Celebrity were named parties as of 5-7 years ago with regard to a venue and federal court jurisdiction issue, and 99.9% of the time they are binding provisions. The lone exception is if a passenger was not given sufficient time prior to boarding to review the Cruise contract which is why Cruise Contracts are mailed about 3-4 weeks prior to boarding and why confirmations at the time of purchase and sales brochures refer you to internet sites where the Cruise Contract can be reviewed. In most of these cases a litigant would have to spend an exorbitant amount of money just to get past mandatory venue, mandatory jurisdiction, removal to federal court, summary judgment issues and dismissal on procedural grounds before you could even get to the Courtroom. I've experienced this first hand in my practice.

[nrdsb4]

There is a line of case law that implies that #4 would not hold up in court. There were several cases in which a hospital claimed that because the emergency room doctors were inependent contractors, the hospital was not liable for the ER doctors' actions. In most of these cases, the hospital had a sign in the ER stating this fact and therefore claimed that the patients were informed beforehand and signed off on this. The courts all determined that the hospital is liable, based on the theory of non-delegable duty. That means that having an emergency room staffed with ER physicians is so central to operating a hospital that the hospital cannot delegate the duty or liability away by having ER doctors that are independent contractors. Therefore, if a court determined that having doctors on a cruise ship is central to operating a cruise ship (which it definitely would), then the court would hold the cruiseline responsible for the actions of the independent contractor doctors on the theory that the cruiseline cannot delegate the liability away.

 

 

Why do you assume this? According to the US COAST GUARD site describing maritime regulations,

 

Cruise Ship Consumer Fact Sheet

 

 

OCEAN CRUISE SHIPS

This Fact Sheet explains how cruise ships are regulated by the U.S. Coast Guard and other Government agencies.

 

Coast Guard Safety Oversight

 

 

Vessel Safety. Ocean-going cruise ships of U.S. registry must meet a comprehensive set of Coast Guard safety regulations and be inspected annually by the Coast Guard to check for compliance. The safety regulations cover such things as hull structure, watertight integrity, structural requirements to minimize fire hazards, equipment requirements for lifesaving, firefighting, and vessel control, and requirements pertaining to the safe navigation of the ship. If the ship passes its annual inspection, it is issued a Coast Guard Certificate of Inspection valid for one year. The certificate must be displayed where passengers can see it.

 

Today, nearly all the ocean cruise lines employ passenger ships registered under flags of various foreign countries. (Note: The law requires that cruise-ship advertising in the U.S. disclose the country of registry.) Each ship is subject to the vessel inspection laws of the country in which it is registered. However, as a condition of permitting the vessels to take on passengers at U.S. ports, the U.S. Coast Guard requires the ships to meet the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (referred to as SOLAS.) SOLAS and other international regulations also require compliance with stringent regulations regarding structural fire protection, firefighting and lifesaving equipment, watercraft integrity and stability, vessel control, navigation safety, crewing and crew competency, safety management and environmental protection.

 

To insure compliance with SOLAS, the Coast Guard examines the ship when it first goes into service at a U.S. port, with quarterly checks thereafter. The examinations emphasize structural fire safety and proper lifesaving equipment. Fire and abandon ship drills conducted by the ship's crew are witnessed, and operational tests are made on key equipment such as steering systems, fire pumps, and lifeboats. The Coast Guard has the authority to require correction of any deficiencies before allowing the ship to take on passengers at the U.S. port. The records of these examinations (called Control Verification Examinations) are open to the public at the Coast Guard Marine Safety Office (MSO) which conducted the examination. To do a search for a specific vessel, contact our Port State Information Exchange web site at: http://psix.uscg.mil.

 

 

Crewmember Competency. On U.S. passenger vessels, licensed individuals and crew must meet standards for experience and training set forth in Coast Guard regulations. The Coast Guard can revoke or suspend the individual's license or merchant mariner's document for acts of misconduct or incompetence. On foreign-flag cruise ships trading in the U.S., SOLAS requires the vessel to be sufficiently and efficiently manned. The officers' licenses and the vessel's compliance with manning standards are checked as part of the Control Verification Examination.

 

Medical Care and Services Are Not Covered Coast Guard regulations and SOLAS generally focus on requirements for the safe navigation and design of the cruise ship itself. There are many aspects of the daily care of passengers and their on-board accommodation that are not covered by Government regulation. One example of this is medical care. The Coast Guard does not require that passenger vessels carry a ship's doctor. Most, if not all ocean-going passenger vessels today do provide a doctor and medical facilities in order to offer attractive and competitive service. Passengers should realize that the quality of their medical care is not guaranteed by Coast Guard regulations. If you are concerned about this aspect of life aboard a cruise ship, contact the cruise line or travel agent for the particulars of medical services provided, both at sea and while visiting foreign ports.

[Petert]

I think that many of our CC friends are missing an important consideration when discussing the legal verbiage of the contract we all sign when we decide to cruise with a commercial carrier. The real culprit in this situation is the legal profession, with a big assist from individuals with little sense of personal responsibility, and a propensity to sue for any percieved wrong.

 

A current case of a lawyer/judge suing a dry cleaner for $64,000,000 over a missing pair of pants, illustrates the irresponsibility of many in the legal profession. If one thinks that the cruise industry has gone overboard in legal disclaimers, they should take a look at thier household cleaning products, step ladders, tools and electric appliances to see how many industries have been victims from irresponsible tort lawyers, and also attempt to protect themselves by publishing disclaimers. The biggest opponents to national tort reform is the well funded legal profession, which profits from both sides of the tort litigation, whether it goes to court or reaches a negotiated settlement.

 

To my knowledge and experience the cruise industry has, in most cases, comported itself responsibly and has treated thier customers fairly. In some five cases when we have had minor cruise disruptions (no ice for a day, missed port call, delayed debarkation, mechanical delay) in 45 cruises, the impact was minimized and we have been compensated for any shortcomings. The contractual disclaimers seem to be primarily used to discourage frivolous litigation, and provide some protection to the cruise lines from tort lawyers out to make a buck.

 

Petert

[smeyer418]

In an American court #3 would not hold if there was negligence or malfeasance.

 

Teejer

yes but then its not a warrantee of what is described. A warrantee means that the cruise line would be absolutely liable without any neglience or breach of duty on its part. Parts of this are not enforceable. If the ship is not sea worthy and the cruise line takes it out anyway it will be liable.

 

US federal law says that any limitation of liability in case of a physical injury caused by neglience is unenforceable on any cruise ship that leaves or returns to the US not withstanding its foreign flag..

 

As for doctors negligence the courts that have spoken on the issue have found that the cruise lines ARE NOT liable for negligence of physicians.( a lower Florida court was recently reversed for finding otherwise).

 

Some states have privacy laws which do prohibi the use of your image for commerical purposes without written consent. You rarely see a commercial that has people who have not signed such a waiver.

[Lightsluvr]

I had no intent to scare anyone... I certainly love to cruise and especially on RCI. As you can see in my signature, I have a cruise booked, over 13 months away. I just took the time to read the document this morning and chose to give a summary, so others may be more informed. :)

 

That kinda looks like the contract of carriage used by airlines!! LOL :D

 

Do you work out of DAL? Flying thru there 8 times this month on some form of 737...;)

 

LL

[StormGoddess]

There is a line of case law that implies that #4 would not hold up in court. There were several cases in which a hospital claimed that because the emergency room doctors were inependent contractors, the hospital was not liable for the ER doctors' actions. In most of these cases, the hospital had a sign in the ER stating this fact and therefore claimed that the patients were informed beforehand and signed off on this. The courts all determined that the hospital is liable, based on the theory of non-delegable duty. That means that having an emergency room staffed with ER physicians is so central to operating a hospital that the hospital cannot delegate the duty or liability away by having ER doctors that are independent contractors. Therefore, if a court determined that having doctors on a cruise ship is central to operating a cruise ship (which it definitely would), then the court would hold the cruiseline responsible for the actions of the independent contractor doctors on the theory that the cruiseline cannot delegate the liability away.

 

Number 4 has already held up in a court. There was a very recent ruling that was in favor of a cruiseline because medical personnel don't work for the actual cruise line. Not saying this is always the case, but it can be to the benefit of the cruiseline too.

 

[BigGayBert]

I think it looks like the standard meaningless legalese mumbo-jumbo. It seems that the cruise lines usually go above and beyond the terms of the contract. I have heard that passengers who have gotten Noro during an outbreak onboard were issued credits or discounts towards a future cruise or something like that. Per the contract, they are under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to give you anything if you get sick.

[smeyer418]

 

 

Number 4 has already held up in a court. There was a very recent ruling that was in favor of a cruiseline because medical personnel don't work for the actual cruise line. Not saying this is always the case, but it can be to the benefit of the cruiseline too.

 

I agree. A cruise ship is not a hospital. The reason it's a non delegable duty is that the hospital is in better position to determine whether the care is appropriate and that hiring a physician for an emergency room is a hospital's duty. There is no such duty on behalf of a cruise line or any expertise in determining the doctors qualifications(other than the fact they are licensed), The cruise line can't even legally have access to the National Practitioners Data Bank which has a history of the doctors previous cases. You should also know that if it is a charitable(non-profit) hospital, many states grant the hospital immunity as well so to make a long story short you shouldn't mix apples and oranges and assume that if a hospital would be liable a cruise company would be.

 

BTW that is not to say I agree with the court on this one(for what its worth) I do believe the cruise line is in a better position to hire and equip competent physicians and its unfair to make the patient find the physician and sue(as in the case in Florida I believe the physician is from Australia.)..but unfortunately I don't get to make the decision.

[aqhacruiser]

Why do you assume this? According to the US COAST GUARD site describing maritime regulations,

 

Cruise Ship Consumer Fact Sheet

 

 

OCEAN CRUISE SHIPS

This Fact Sheet explains how cruise ships are regulated by the U.S. Coast Guard and other Government agencies.

 

Coast Guard Safety Oversight

 

 

Vessel Safety. Ocean-going cruise ships of U.S. registry must meet a comprehensive set of Coast Guard safety regulations and be inspected annually by the Coast Guard to check for compliance. The safety regulations cover such things as hull structure, watertight integrity, structural requirements to minimize fire hazards, equipment requirements for lifesaving, firefighting, and vessel control, and requirements pertaining to the safe navigation of the ship. If the ship passes its annual inspection, it is issued a Coast Guard Certificate of Inspection valid for one year. The certificate must be displayed where passengers can see it.

 

Today, nearly all the ocean cruise lines employ passenger ships registered under flags of various foreign countries. (Note: The law requires that cruise-ship advertising in the U.S. disclose the country of registry.) Each ship is subject to the vessel inspection laws of the country in which it is registered. However, as a condition of permitting the vessels to take on passengers at U.S. ports, the U.S. Coast Guard requires the ships to meet the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (referred to as SOLAS.) SOLAS and other international regulations also require compliance with stringent regulations regarding structural fire protection, firefighting and lifesaving equipment, watercraft integrity and stability, vessel control, navigation safety, crewing and crew competency, safety management and environmental protection.

 

To insure compliance with SOLAS, the Coast Guard examines the ship when it first goes into service at a U.S. port, with quarterly checks thereafter. The examinations emphasize structural fire safety and proper lifesaving equipment. Fire and abandon ship drills conducted by the ship's crew are witnessed, and operational tests are made on key equipment such as steering systems, fire pumps, and lifeboats. The Coast Guard has the authority to require correction of any deficiencies before allowing the ship to take on passengers at the U.S. port. The records of these examinations (called Control Verification Examinations) are open to the public at the Coast Guard Marine Safety Office (MSO) which conducted the examination. To do a search for a specific vessel, contact our Port State Information Exchange web site at: http://psix.uscg.mil.

 

 

Crewmember Competency. On U.S. passenger vessels, licensed individuals and crew must meet standards for experience and training set forth in Coast Guard regulations. The Coast Guard can revoke or suspend the individual's license or merchant mariner's document for acts of misconduct or incompetence. On foreign-flag cruise ships trading in the U.S., SOLAS requires the vessel to be sufficiently and efficiently manned. The officers' licenses and the vessel's compliance with manning standards are checked as part of the Control Verification Examination.

 

Medical Care and Services Are Not Covered Coast Guard regulations and SOLAS generally focus on requirements for the safe navigation and design of the cruise ship itself. There are many aspects of the daily care of passengers and their on-board accommodation that are not covered by Government regulation. One example of this is medical care. The Coast Guard does not require that passenger vessels carry a ship's doctor. Most, if not all ocean-going passenger vessels today do provide a doctor and medical facilities in order to offer attractive and competitive service. Passengers should realize that the quality of their medical care is not guaranteed by Coast Guard regulations. If you are concerned about this aspect of life aboard a cruise ship, contact the cruise line or travel agent for the particulars of medical services provided, both at sea and while visiting foreign ports.

 

I was going to mention this and I'm glad you posted the regs so I did not have to look them up but a ship is not required to have a doctor or medical facility and they are medical services that are contracted out. I also agree with another post that it would take a great deal of money to pursue a claim with RCCL but of course it's been done.

[DivineDivia]

I'm willing to bet that the majority of these provisions have been upheld in court. I bet that any time the cruise line has been held at fault for something, the first thing they do is have their atty's revise this contract so it doesn't happen again.

 

Also, the cruise line can "contract away" simple negliegence, they can't however contract away gross negligence.

[broberts]

On the subject of physicians and medical services. Cruise lines provide medical services to their employees as part of their employment contract. Does this not place an additional burden on them when they award medical services contracts?

 

I've also wondered about the fact that doctors habitually wear a ship uniform. It seems to me that regardless of any claim to the contrary the donning of a ship uniform, or reasonable facsimile, while on-board proclaims membership in the crew and at the very least endorsement by the cruise line.

 

At least one cruise line's contract says that excursion personnel are independent contractors despite their wearing clothing that identifies themselves with the cruise line. It seems to me that, once again, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. It seems unreasonable to me that consumers should have to verify the employment status of each person they interact with. Imagine this scenario;) :

 

<knock, knock>

PAX: yes?

X: please leave your cabin immediately

PAX: ummmm . . . you are?

X: see my uniform, I'm a member of the crew giving you an order

PAX: I see the uniform, but my cruise contract specifically says that I cannot rely on what people are wearing to judge who they work for. Are you employed by the cruise line or an independent contractor?

 

Extreme perhaps but it does highlight a potential problem.

[smeyer418]

On the subject of physicians and medical services. Cruise lines provide medical services to their employees as part of their employment contract. Does this not place an additional burden on them when they award medical services contracts?

 

I've also wondered about the fact that doctors habitually wear a ship uniform. It seems to me that regardless of any claim to the contrary the donning of a ship uniform, or reasonable facsimile, while on-board proclaims membership in the crew and at the very least endorsement by the cruise line.

 

At least one cruise line's contract says that excursion personnel are independent contractors despite their wearing clothing that identifies themselves with the cruise line. It seems to me that, once again, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. It seems unreasonable to me that consumers should have to verify the employment status of each person they interact with. Imagine this scenario;) :

 

<knock, knock>

PAX: yes?

X: please leave your cabin immediately

PAX: ummmm . . . you are?

X: see my uniform, I'm a member of the crew giving you an order

PAX: I see the uniform, but my cruise contract specifically says that I cannot rely on what people are wearing to judge who they work for. Are you employed by the cruise line or an independent contractor?

 

Extreme perhaps but it does highlight a potential problem.

 

Clearly you are right this is the law on the land. Many department stores lease departments to outside companies but you don't care when you have a problem its still the overall companies responsibility, unfortunately this is not the way the courts have come out on this issue. An employer hires a doctor to provide medical care to its employees..if the doctor does something wrong can the employees sue the doctor? No in most cases workers comp takes the place of the lawsuit and on the sea the employee will have recourse to the Jones Act(yes that Jones Act) provisions dealing with injuries(workers comp of the sea). So far the courts have held that the independent contractors status of medical staff precludes a lawsuit againt the cruise line...uniform or no uniform....

[smeyer418]

I'm willing to bet that the majority of these provisions have been upheld in court. I bet that any time the cruise line has been held at fault for something, the first thing they do is have their atty's revise this contract so it doesn't happen again.

 

Also, the cruise line can "contract away" simple negliegence, they can't however contract away gross negligence.

No cruise lines cannot contract away its negligence if it causes an injury. And doesn't matter if it is gross or simple. I never really understood the difference between merely negligent or grossly negligent since the line is hard to draw(and hardly meaningful). US law says if the cruise line is negligent and it causes physical injury it's liability can't be waived by any contractual term period.